§  What's New  ||  Search   ||  Legal Archive  ||  Wog Media  ||  Cult Media  ||  CoW ® ||  Writings  ||  Fun  ||  Disclaimer  ||  Contact  §

From: Zinj <zinjifar@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Sayonawa for now
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 18:36:10 -0800
Message-ID: <MPG.1a1201f01cac2af29899ac@news2.lightlink.com>
References: <3f9c736e@news2.lightlink.com> <bni0rh01n4s@drn.newsguy.com> <Xns9420EA179C185kadywwwaifnet@> <bnjhgh0f7m@drn.newsguy.com> <3F9D864B.3050307@rochester.rr.com> <Xns9421ABE6DAFC4kadywwwaifnet@> <3FA40071.4090007@rochester.rr.com> <Xns94269224CDA4Dkadywwwaifnet@> <bo75d701ff3@drn.newsguy.com> <MPG.1a10c0b4a29c39f39899a6@news2.lightlink.com> <bo7mau0kc@drn.newsguy.com> <MPG.1a118c86537f9b569899a9@news2.lightlink.com> <th2gqvk2nnl1nf50lu1c77jqt3ot3vie5t@4ax.com>
Organization: BadCo
X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.60
X-Trace: 4 Nov 2003 21:35:41 -0500,
X-Original-Trace: 4 Nov 2003 21:35:41 -0500,
Lines: 119
Path: news2.lightlink.com
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1654932

In article <th2gqvk2nnl1nf50lu1c77jqt3ot3vie5t@4ax.com>,
gerry@gerryarmstrong.org says...
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 10:15:10 -0800, Zinj <zinjifar@yahoo.com> wrote:


> >Nobody's disputing *anybody's* contributions. Well mostly not
> >anyway, and when they do, the 'my contribution is bigger than
> >your contribution' is pretty silly.
> >
> >What is happening is that activist type people are claiming that
> >one must revere, defend and never never ever criticize
> >'critics' in proportion to their 'contributions'.
> That's a lie. I believe it's a lie to excuse your unmerited,
> irrational, threatening, vicious attacks on good people. I further
> believe that such attacks based on such lies serve the cult's
> malevolent purposes.

Oh poor Gerry. There you go again pretending to be too stupid to
tell an opinion from a lie. Beyond that, why would I need to
excuse anything? Criticizing and even making fun of you; is that
my sin?

'Unmerited' is in the eye of the beholder, unless you're
claiming your eye sets the standard. Do you?

Irrational seems to me to be merely failing to fall over stunned
by your hypothetically brilliant yet disingenuous rhetorical
skills, but 'theatening'? Vicious? Good? Are you the 'good'
person meant? Again, good is a bit subjective for me to judge.
You probably are good, but you do a pretty good imitation of
loony too. They're not incompatible.

> Or prove me wrong. Produce all of these claims made by me or anyone
> else.

Oh, I think we can do fine sticking with you for now.
According to you:

"Therefore, actions that "depopularize the enemy," among whose
numbers I do include myself, serve the cult's malevolent
purposes toward its "enemy," regardless of whether the
depopularizers doing the depopularizing are Scientologists in
good standing, whether they are doing their depopularizing as
"part of an OSA operation," or whether they are even aware that
in their depopularizing of the "enemy" they are serving the
cult's purposes."

You'd have to be pretending to be pretty damn stupid not to
recognize that by this theory, not only criticizing you (or any
other 'enemy' for that matter) but even saying anything likely
to 'depopularize' you; such as that you're disingenuous, or
sound loony or that you're kind of full of yourself, would
qualify as 'serving the cult's malevolent purposes'.

In fact, the only things that would qualify as 'acceptable' (if
we grant that 'serving the cult's malevolent purposes' is
unacceptable) would be gratious appreciation of your beingness
and efforts, or silence. 'If you can't say something nice about
Gerry; don't say anything at all!'

So, like I said, you're 'playing' at least as 'stupid' as anyone
you're accusing of that horrid crime, if you don't recognize the
identical nature of your weird theory and 'claiming to be beyond
crtiicism' (at least for anyone unwilling to accept 'serving the
cult's malevolent purposes')

> I say you can't, because no such claims were ever made by real
> "activist type people."

Since the theory stated above is exactly the same as 'don't
criticize Gerry, cuz otherwise you're serving the cult!' it
doesn't matter whether the 'activist type persons' said so
directly, or whether they chose to weasle around it.

> If they were ever made they were made by posters serving the cult's
> malevolent purposes to "set up" this kind of bogus argument to justify
> unmerited, irrational, threatening, vicious attacks on people.

Speaking of which. Since the cult has attacked me, and considers
me an 'enemy', doesn't that make you 'serving the cult's
purposes' by criticizing and attempting to 'depopularize me?

Kady? Ptsc? anybody else on *your* particular 'enemy' list? The
Cult has *lots* of enemies, not all of them ensrhined in your
'hall of recognized critics'.

> But why don't you just post all these "claims" by "activist type
> people" saying that one must revere, defend and never never ever
> criticize 'critics' in proportion to their 'contributions'.

I think your own statements, minus the weasle words, say that
pretty succinctly. But, of course, since you're 'pretending to
be stupid', you're unlikely to admit that.

> I say you're lying, and lying to create an illusory basis to carry out
> your black PR attacks.

And I say you're a self-inflated and impressed popinjay with
delusions of grandeur, but hey; nobody's perfect. Yet. Including

Since readers of ARS might agree with me, and you might be
'depopularized' I guess I'll just have to live with being
considered as 'serving the malevolent cult' by you and your
other 'activist type' friends.

Not a biggy

Oh, I almost forgot; since you seem to be attempting to pass
Barbara Schwarz in the Loony Lane, you yourself are doing the
most effective job of 'depopularizing' Gerry Armstrong. Maybe
you'd better write yourself a KR about that.

Scientology® - Deliberately killing no more than 0.5 percent of
its members since 1953






§  What's New  ||  Search   ||  Legal Archive  ||  Wog Media  ||  Cult Media  ||  CoW ® ||  Writings  ||  Fun  ||  Disclaimer  ||  Contact  §